Besides being graced by the narration of Jeff Bridges...a must for anyone interested in the visual arts, particularly the artists who began to put CA art on the contemporary map...as well as for anyone interested in the times in which they live...not to mention good film-making...

http://excogitatinggenius.blogspot.com/2011/10/jb63-cool-school-2008-documentary.html

it looks cool for some kind of artists

Pretty inneresting little doc film about the heyday of the LA art scene.

Art offers the possibility of love with strangers. - unknown, yet quoted in this movie by one of the key players

Although not highly informative, this is a great view into the West Coast art scene at a time most people didn't one existed.

Very well made look at the LA art scene in the mid-20th century.

great art history lesson

Interesting peek at California art from the beat generation on. They planted the seeds for funk, hard edge, and our contemporary genres such as the lowbrow movement, west coast grafitti, mission school, conceptual art and installation. Narrated by The Dude.

It was interesting and I learned something. Overall though, wasn't particularly blown away or anything.

A lot of information, very well done, and made me wish I was not a sparkle in my mother's eye at that time. I think I would have gotten into it more if I was a part of that generation.

"history of the LA art scene which will be most interesting for those who are involved in it."

Too cool for school.

A good overview of the post-war art scene in Los Angeles, based around Ferus gallery. Though not as inclusive as it might be, the interviews, photographs, and footage are all worthwhile.

Possibly a little specialist - one chapter on the DVD is devoted to ceramics - but generally strong on the process by which modern art went from being considered Communist propaganda to outright obscene to (under the leadership of brillantined Cary Grant wannabe Irving Bern) status symbol and item of worth. The interviewees make good cases for fallen or forgotten pacesetters (John Altoon, Craig Kauffman), and speak persuasively about the advantages of being an artist in L.A. (the rawness, the space, the light) over being an artist in New York, with its confining tradition of art history. You may not care for the pieces and canvasses' bright, sheeny, plasticky look - "that California high school kind of thing", as one observer puts it - but the film is cultured, bohemian, very cool fun: the "Dogtown and Z-Boys" of abstract impressionism and all points thereafter.

this was an average, yet interesting documentary I saw at the Cleveland International Film festival, about the Art scene in LA in the 50-60s

Bizarrely identical in format to the "Black, White and Gray..." film about Sam Wagstaff also shown at the London Film Festival, but far better made and somewhat more illuminating. Are all US art documentaries made according to the same rules? (Black and white photography, endless captioning, earnest, pretentious and/or celeb talking heads, plus a very stern and slow PAY-ATTENTION-I-AM-TALKING-TO-YOU voice over?) I think I might have enjoyed this film a lot more if I hadn't seen the awful "Black, White and Gray" a few days before, but on the other hand over here we've become used to art docs which allow the art to "speak for itself" without the need for endless torrents of words. Also this film shares the pretentious notion that only those well versed in the theory are capable of appreciating "difficult" art. ("He was a CHEMISTRY major!!!" Gasp - shock - horror!!!) Of course, it's also inescapable from what's shown here, that the "bad guy" made most of his money from New York art, not from the stuff being produced in LA, at least until he ripped off his former business partner. It'd be far better shown as a cautionary tale for business students rather than passed off as an art film.